DEAL REACHED: Directv Customers may lose the Sinclair Stations Mar 1

You could say that about ESPN, USA or CNN too. Both need each other. Why does one get paid and the other shouldn't? Particularly since network TV is what people watch most.

Click to expand...

But local stations don't own that network programming. So why should DIRECTV and other MSOs be forced by law to deal exclusively with these local stations for material they don't even originate in any way other than as an in market outlet for it?

As you say network programming is what most people watch, not these various outlet stations' local originated junk which those in the minority who want it can mostly go OTA for.

DIRECTV should have the right to purchase network programming from alternate sources if they wish and beam it to their subscribers in affected markets of these disputes.

The government needs to quit protecting this obsolete dinosaur local TV station model with market exclusivity regulations which they use to extort ever more money from the MSOs this way.

But local stations don't own that network programming. So why should DIRECTV and other MSOs be forced by law to deal exclusively with these local stations for material they don't even originate in any way other than as an in market outlet for it?

As you say network programming is what most people watch, not these various outlet stations' local originated junk which those in the minority who want it can mostly go OTA for.

DIRECTV should have the right to purchase network programming from alternate sources if they wish and beam it to their subscribers in affected markets of these disputes.

The government needs to quit protecting this obsolete dinosaur local TV station model with market exclusivity regulations which they use to extort ever more money from the MSOs this way.

You could say that about ESPN, USA or CNN too. Both need each other. Why does one get paid and the other shouldn't? Particularly since network TV is what people watch most.

Click to expand...

While no doubt the bolded fragment is true for people who only watch TV OTA, is it a true statement for DirecTV, Dish, UVerse, or Cable subscribers? Except when an SEC basketball game is on CBS (and more than than 90% of SEC basketball games that are broadcast are not on CBS, and none od them are on ABC, FOX, or NBC), I watch network TV for no more than 3 hours per week. That is less than 15% of my viewing time. Of the three hours of network broadcasts that I do watch per week, two are on CBS and one is on FOX. I have not watched NBC or ABC for years. With all of the original programming on the "cable channels", networks have become irrelevant.

You can like it or not like it, but the network/affiliate model means the local station had exclusive rights to broadcast the network in their particular market. It's what allows the station to bring in revenue to finance, among other things, local news and public service. Allow signals from other markets, or from a national source, and local commitment goes away, the market is not served locally.

And being OTA makes it free for consumers getting it that way; it's not a license for other providers to resell the signal without compensation. If you don't want to pay for locals you don't have to, pull out an antenna and watch all you want -- the station won't bill you. But if Directv or Dish or cable use the signal to make their packages more attractive for sales, they need to pay the locals. How much is the subject for negotiating. You can't use someone else's property to make money for yourself without permission.

You can't, for instance, record a free public concert, them turn around and sell it for profit, without the artist's permission. Even though the original performance was free and available to anyone walking by, like OTA, you can't use it for profit without paying for it.

While no doubt the bolded fragment is true for people who only watch TV OTA, is it a true statement for DirecTV, Dish, UVerse, or Cable subscribers? Except when an SEC basketball game is on CBS (and more than than 90% of SEC basketball games that are broadcast are not on CBS, and none od them are on ABC, FOX, or NBC), I watch network TV for no more than 3 hours per week. That is less than 15% of my viewing time. Of the three hours of network broadcasts that I do watch per week, two are on CBS and one is on FOX. I have not watched NBC or ABC for years. With all of the original programming on the "cable channels", networks have become irrelevant.

Click to expand...

That's you, and it's not the norm. Network programming has the most eyeballs every week. The networks are hardly irrelevant.

That's you, and it's not the norm. Network programming has the most eyeballs every week. The networks are hardly irrelevant.

Click to expand...

But their numbers are diminishing by the month; they are not so slowly becoming irrelevant.

In this house, unless it is one of about 4 shows we watch on what would be OTA stations or a sports event we are interested in, when we watch tv it is on a "cable" channel and 95% from the DVR, including those 4. Broadcasters may not like it, but we only see commercials when viewing the aforementioned sports events.

That's why you don't see me complaiining about DirecTV's annual price increase as I realize someone has to pay for all this convenience.

And being OTA makes it free for consumers getting it that way; it's not a license for other providers to resell the signal without compensation.

Click to expand...

Who says they are reselling it. IIRC the price is the same with or without locals.

If they provided it free of charge, does this change your opinion?

As has mentioned, the affiliates are riding a dinosaur. I watch more and more non-affiliate programming. Series on TNT and A&E are every bit as good as those on the networks. The affiliates days are numbered at least as we know them.

It's not. If you're grandfathered and never activated your locals, live in a market that doesn't get locals or you can't get the locals because of LOS issues, the packages are $3 cheaper.

On the other hand, compare that to the $15-$25 package most cable systems have which are nothing but locals, non-profit channels (i.e. religious channels), shopping channels that pay them for carriage, local news channels run by the cable provider and/or mandated Public/Educational/Government access channels.

Who says they are reselling it. IIRC the price is the same with or without locals.

If they provided it free of charge, does this change your opinion?

As has mentioned, the affiliates are riding a dinosaur. I watch more and more non-affiliate programming. Series on TNT and A&E are every bit as good as those on the networks. The affiliates days are numbered at least as we know them.

Click to expand...

It's not the 3 bucks a month that matters. It's the using of the locals to sell the Diectv service as a whole. Who wants packages without locals? Not many. Having locals keeps them competitive with Cable and Dish. What they charge us isn't relevant to the point. When I first got D I kept a local package on cable. Now I don't have to. Competitive advantage, since I can now get everything from one provider and it's all integrated. All my channels come up on one guide and work with my DVR.

It's not the 3 bucks a month that matters. It's the using of the locals to sell the Diectv service as a whole. Who wants packages without locals? Not many. Having locals keeps them competitive with Cable and Dish. What they charge us isn't relevant to the point. When I first got D I kept a local package on cable. Now I don't have to. Competitive advantage, since I can now get everything from one provider and it's all integrated. All my channels come up on one guide and work with my DVR.

Click to expand...

Well with the AM21 box and if the customer has OTA then we should have the option not to pay for Locals and the ones that cant ! They can pay

It's not the 3 bucks a month that matters. It's the using of the locals to sell the Diectv service as a whole. Who wants packages without locals? Not many. Having locals keeps them competitive with Cable and Dish. What they charge us isn't relevant to the point. When I first got D I kept a local package on cable. Now I don't have to. Competitive advantage, since I can now get everything from one provider and it's all integrated. All my channels come up on one guide and work with my DVR.

Click to expand...

I will ask. Why is this different than putting an antenna on the roof of a condo and charging people for the installation and a fee to cover repairs?

Who wants packages without locals? Not many. Having locals keeps them competitive with Cable and Dish.

Click to expand...

I had DirecTV for years before they even offered locals, and I did not keep cable. When my locals were first available, I did not sign up for them. It was not until I was able to get the locals for no additional fee and without a second dish did I start getting my locals from DirecTV. All of my locals could go dark on DirecTV, and I would not care. The only local that I cannot receive OTA is ION, and there is nothing on ION that I ever watch.

The locals should be paying cable and DirecTV for expanding their potential viewer base instead of the other way around.

It's not the 3 bucks a month that matters. It's the using of the locals to sell the Diectv service as a whole. Who wants packages without locals? Not many. Having locals keeps them competitive with Cable and Dish. What they charge us isn't relevant to the point. When I first got D I kept a local package on cable. Now I don't have to. Competitive advantage, since I can now get everything from one provider and it's all integrated. All my channels come up on one guide and work with my DVR.

Click to expand...

I don't think they use it to make their packages more attractive, it's more to keep it comparable to what others can offer or, I would think this is more important, to continue providing what consumers have expected from the birth of these networks. I think the restaurant charging for ice is great comparison to what you're aiming at. It's not to make the drink seem more enticing, it's to give the customer what they already expect to have.

IIRC, when E* had these disputes last year, they threatened to remove the channels as well but left them on for another 2 weeks until the negotiations were resolved. I believe the same thing happened with AT&T before E*. I highly doubt the channels will go dark at all.

A letter I emailed to WWMT (Sinclair owned station in my area), not that I think it really makes one bit of difference:

To Whom it may concern...I am beyond disappointed with WWMT and Sinclair Broadcasting Corporation in this retransmission dispute with DirecTV. Sinclair Broadcasting has shown its true colors as a greedy corporation interested not in serving the public properly and reliably, but only in making the short term dollar at the expense of long term viewer loyalty and trust. They attempt to turn DirecTV customers against their provider in this retrans dispute, when the choice to pull WWMT (and indeed all of their 40+ stations across the country) lies solely with Sinclair and their exorbitant demands for increased retransmission fees. Sinclair suggests simply switching providers, which is easier said than done, very inconvenient, and also quite hypocritical considering that Sinclair also had recent retrans disputes with some of the very same providers they are suggesting a switch to (such as DISH, Comcast, Verizon, etc.) It seems rather underhanded that you continue to scroll your "warning" that WWMT will no longer be available to DirecTV viewers (and ONLY DirecTV viewers) beginning March 1st, doing so during the news and other popular CBS shows, attempting to instill fear into viewers so they will do Sinclair's bidding and pester DirecTV. Well, I'm going to pester YOU instead. Many viewers are not as educated on the dispute as I am, and thus would be easily manipulated, as I'm sure Sinclair knows and is trying to use to its advantage. Very unsavory. Channel 3 WWMT has consistently had quality issues in my viewing opinion. They seem to have a poor OTA signal, and one that I cannot consider watchable where I live. I also do not have cable service available to my house. Lucky for me, I will watch the CBS shows I like online and I will skip your inferior newscast, and thus I will take WWMT's advertisers out of the loop entirely. Isn't technology great? I will not inconvenience myself simply to continue viewing WWMT, and I will inform everyone I know of the things I am telling you, and encourage them to avoid WWMT as well. Its a shame that in a dispute between two corporations, the actual customer - the viewer - is caught in the middle and used. It feels like nothing short of blackmail in a fashion, to make threats to deprive viewers of something many get for free, and as stated before, the threat maker - Sinclair - is the one with the sole power to make the deprivation a reality. After all, DirecTV cannot CHOOSE to drop your signal, only Sinclair can CHOOSE to have it removed. I am not suggesting that Sinclair should operate as a non-profit, or that it should lose money, but if its going to whine about the amount of money it makes allowing retransmission of its signal when many get it for free, it appears disingenuous at best. After all, shouldn't the idea be to get as many viewer eyes as possible on WWMT's advertisers? This dispute is doing the opposite. It is unfortunate that disputes like these are so commonplace nowadays, but it is downright despicable to play "tug of war" with the viewers caught in the middle. For shame.